Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758531
Research Article

Feasibility of Measuring the Behavioral and Electrophysiological Masking-Level Difference with Nonsense-Syllable Stimuli

Lauren K. Dillard
1   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
2   Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Emily M. Wilson
1   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
So Eun Park
1   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Cynthia G. Fowler
1   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The masking-level difference (MLD) can be measured via voluntary behavioral responses (voluntary behavioral MLD [vMLD]) and/or via electrophysiological cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs; electrophysiological MLD [eMLD]). It may be possible to enhance the ecologic validity of the MLD by using nonsense-syllable speech stimuli.

Purpose The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of measuring both the vMLD and eMLD with speech stimuli. The study also investigates whether certain nonsense-syllable stimuli (/α/, /dα/, /di/, /tα/, /wα/) may be more useful than others in measuring both the vMLD and eMLD.

Research Design This is a descriptive feasibility pilot study.

Study Sample Seventeen young adults (age range 19–26 years; 15 women) with hearing thresholds of 0.25–8.0 kHz ≤ 25 dB HL, bilaterally, were recruited.

Data Collection and Analysis Behavioral and electrophysiological MLDs were measured with similar methods. The MLD was defined as SoNo – SπNo thresholds. Stimuli were natural-sounding nonsense syllables (/α/, /dα/, /di/, /tα/, /wα/), which were presented in 65 dB HL continuous speech-weighted noise. The eMLD was measured with the CAEP P2. Group means, standard deviations, and distributions were presented. The feasibility of using nonsense syllables was evaluated by considering whether measurable vMLDs and eMLDs were produced. Useful nonsense syllables produced vMLDs and eMLDs with (1) comparatively large mean magnitudes, (2) few negligible MLDs, and (3) distributions with adequate spread and few extreme values.

Results The stimuli /α/ (6.0 [1.9]) and /wα/ (7.5 [1.3]) produced vMLDs with the highest average magnitudes, with no vMLDs of 0 dB and with adequate spread. The stimulus /α/ produced eMLDs with the highest average magnitude (9.6 [2.8]), no eMLDs of 0 dB and adequate spread, whereas the stimulus /wα/ produced eMLDs with an adequate magnitude (6.9 [3.9]), no MLDs of 0 dB, but with a right-skewed distribution and an extreme value. The other stimuli produced vMLDs with low mean magnitudes and several vMLDs of 0 dB.

Conclusion These pilot data support the feasibility of using nonsense syllables to record vMLDs and eMLDs. The stimulus /α/ appeared most useful for both behavioral and electrophysiological modalities. Differences in MLDs across modalities may be attributed to low-level audibility of some high-frequency components of the stimuli.

Keywords

masking-level difference - electrophysiology - cortical auditory evoked potentials - audiology

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 19 January 2022

Accepted: 09 September 2022

Article published online:
12 September 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hirsh IJ. The influence of interaural phase on interaural summation and inhibition. J Acoust Soc Am 1948; 20: 536-544
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Licklider JCR. The influence of interaural phase relations upon the masking of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc 1948; 20: 150-159
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jerger J, Brown D, Smith S. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch Otolaryngol 1984; 110 (05) 290-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fowler CG, Mikami CM. Effects of noise bandwidth on the late-potential masking level difference. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992; 84 (02) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fowler CG, Mikami CM. Phase effects on the middle and late auditory evoked potentials. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7 (01) 23-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Eddins AC, Eddins DA. Cortical correlates of binaural temporal processing deficits in older adults. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (03) 594-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lightfoot G. Summary of the N1–P2 cortical auditory evoked potential to estimate the auditory threshold in adults. Semin Hear 2016; 37 (01) 1-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wack DS, Cox JL, Schirda CV. et al. Functional anatomy of the masking level difference, an fMRI study. PLoS One 2012; 7 (07) e41263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wack DS, Polak P, Furuyama J, Burkard RF. Masking level differences–a diffusion tensor imaging and functional MRI study. PLoS One 2014; 9 (02) e88466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fowler CG. Electrophysiological evidence for the sources of the masking level difference. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (08) 2364-2374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Uppenkamp S, Uhlig CH, Verhey JL. Cortical representation of the combination of monaural and binaural unmasking. Adv Exp Med Biol 2013; 787: 435-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fowler CG, Mikami CM. Binaural phase effects in the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol 1995; 6 (06) 399-406
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA. Masking-level differences in the elderly: a comparison of antiphasic and time-delay dichotic conditions. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (06) 1410-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA. The effect of interaural delay of the masker on masking-level differences in young and old adults. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91 (4 Pt 1): 2129-2135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Papesh MA, Billings CJ, Baltzell LS. Background noise can enhance cortical auditory evoked potentials under certain conditions. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126 (07) 1319-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cone-Wesson B, Ma E, Fowler CG. Effect of stimulus level and frequency on ABR and MLR binaural interaction in human neonates. Hear Res 1997; 106 (1–2): 163-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Boersma P. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 2001; 5: 341-345
    Google Scholar
  • 19 McPherson DL, Senderski A, Burnham MN. et al. Masking level difference in an adaptive procedure for clinical investigation. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (09) 613-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Olsen WO, Noffsinger D. Masking level differences for cochlear and brain stem lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1976; 85 (6 Pt 1): 820-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Noffsinger D, Olsen WO, Carhart R, Hart CW, Sahgal V. Auditory and vestibular aberrations in multiple sclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1972; 303: 1-63
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Wilson RH, Weakley DG. The 500 Hz masking-level difference and word recognition in multitalker babble for 40- to 89-year-old listeners with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (06) 367-382
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar